michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pair-obama -> michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pair-obama/
Michelle Malkin Grow a pair, Obama By Michelle Malkin o July 14, 2008 05:26 AM Barry, So, you found this satirical New Yorker cover art "tasteless and offensive." In Washington, political cartoonists and caricaturists spare no one.
localmalcontent said: Both Obama and the Left in this country intend to catagorize any criticism, any caricature of him as racist'. To force across their wild, socialist agenda on the people by putting everyone on a guilt trip. Such a lame attempt, hiding that neither has real solutions to America's threats or problems.
as for the other kind, they just don't grow on trees you either have em or you don't. Just on his non voting to not show his hand on anything it's obvious he does not have a pair.
Lifeofthemind said: Bush keeps moving on because he is focused on results. Obama and the Moonbats focus on grievance and display because that is all they have. The cornering of the term Move On by the left was brilliant because that was the one thing they can not do. All they can do is attack those who create and build and solve problems. If Obama didn't have non-issues to agonize over, like someone insulting him, then he would have to talk about the substance of an issue. Now Obama gets to talk about the appearance of substance. The hate filled thugs that attack Condi Rice are not an aberration, they are Obama's core constituency.
This is the reason that they don't cry foul when similar attacks are launched against conservates who happen to belong to a racial minority. Afterall, if conservatives remained "true to their identity" then they would not be conservatives. Therefore, it's only racist if you attack a liberal in this manner because such an attack is a personal attack upon character. This is truly the most backward thinking movement that I have ever witnessed - and they call themselves "progressive".
She works at a public school and the laptop and sticker are visable in the classroom everyday and no one has ever told her to remove it. But I will bet this cover would sure be yanked pretty damn fast.
For some reason, it's racist to use his middle name, but saying George DUBYA Bush is okay. Pointing out where his wife put her foot in her mouth is racist, but attacking Laura Bush or Condi Rice is okay.
beenthere said: The cover was intended as a satire on how the Right views the Messiah. For heaven's sake, it is impossible to conceive of the New Yorker doing anything else. The Obamas being the urban sophisticates that they claim to be certainly should know that, or does irony completely escape them? As for McCain, he thinks irony is something the laundry does to his shirts. If he does win, I can well am imagine him spending election night repeatedly apologizing. Like Bush he appears to have two modes: placating the left and attacking the right.
They have no problem with the crude and inappropriate handling of Republicans and conservatives but they cry foul when the exact same things happen to them. Despite his camp's self proclaimed savior status he is tied in the polls with a guy the MSM's tries to tell us nobody wants and nobody agrees with. Maybe that explains Hussein's daily flip flop on issues from his extremist left wing anti-American views to more conservative stance.
Bro Obama can quit his whining yesterday if Sista Michelle (the other Michelle) would release his Pair from the Lock Box. She learned that Lock Box thing from Mama Hillary, the other Liberal Whiner in the race. Now I need to dig out my 2000 Left/Right flip flop beach shoes.
The issue is Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and all the other demagogues who have taken the opportunity at every chance they get to play on Americans' bigotry by calling him Barack Hussein Obama (what's John McCain's middle name? I don't know either because it's not important unless you have roots in an unpopular ethnic group). And the issue is Michelle Malkin for taking on Mrs Obama for being a strong black woman -- dare I say a typical strong black woman -- who has the nerve to say what she feels is wrong with this country.
This time, it's the Democrat who is the pillar of family values, but it doesn't matter. Moreover, either condemn all bigotry or excuse all bigotry. You can't spend your whole life whining about the Ted Ralls of the world, and then say "get over it" when liberals are exposed to equally offensive hatred.
Don't play the conservative grievance card and then tell Obama to "grow a pair" when his camp (not really Obama, who just shrugged and had no comment when told of the story) takes offense.
When a candidate for POTUS lacks the ability to understand why much of the world speaks English rather than Ghetto he's a relic of the far, far left. A carbon unit that will amount to very little unless initiated and fostered by the courts.
It has been pointed out several times that Kennedy was a terrible president for many reasons, not the least of which is that he was nowhere near bright or experienced enough to handle the job. But, although he was a cretin, there's no denying that JFK had a pair. Aside from his psychotic womanizing, he was a man's man. That was actually his aura - much of it faked, given the reality of his frail health, but his "pitch" was "here's a man's man." Obama has JFK's look, but beyond that he's 100% Phil Donahue. This will be the one high-point in what will otherwise be a miserable 4 years...
Gabe said: So, you found this satirical New Yorker cover art "tasteless and offensive." The cover is accurate in its representation of Barack Hussein Obama and his wife. If he disagrees, it's called freedom of speech and freedom of the press. No doubt if this were his country, the first "change" would be to get rid of anything criticizing him or the revolution and to place his picture everywhere like in 1984.
foxforce91 said: BTW, if he won't grow a pair, perhaps he can borrow Hillary's. I've thought many times that Obama will not be the "uniter" his people think he will be merely because I am angry about the 8 years of tantrum throwing the left has had over Bush and I intend to give it back 10-fold. We are better at it and we're smarter than they ever thought of being.
The irony of this statement, of course, is that the cartoon is meant to make fun of how absurd these right wing slurs are (as well as the people who make and believe them. In other words, The New Yorker isn't laughing with you, it's laughing at you). The artist is quoted as saying the cover was created to "show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is." With due respect, this is one of the most oblivious blog posts I have ever seen.
In other words, The New Yorker isn't laughing with you, it's laughing at you). The artist is quoted as saying the cover was created to "show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is Yes I know what they intended, but they actualy managed to paint a somewhat accurate picture.
Seuss's Grinch) covers in 1994 after the Repubs took over the House. The most popular weeklies out there, not some crappy little New Yorker mag. Gingrich is still steaming about those covers, 14 years later. He's like the Jackie Chiles character in Seinfeld -- saying "I am outraged!"
these right wing slurs are (as well as the people who make and believe them." NYK, I live eastern KY, aka, Democrat Central, and believe me, it is not right wingers who are saying those thing, the "slurs," about BHO but the base of the Democrat Party.
The american white voter should not be forced to vote for Obama because he or she is guilty of being born white. They should not vote for that clown and his angry wife because they are bad for our country. The Obamas spent 25 years or however many going to all black anti white church ceremenonies. If McCain went to an all white church which spewed out anti black sermons every week he'd be on a grill for it. The news media wants us all to think that Obama is the only one running for president.
Goldwater Knight said: nyk said: The irony of this statement, of course, is that the cartoon is meant to make fun of how absurd these right wing slurs are (as well as the people who make and believe them. In other words, The New Yorker isn't laughing wi...
|
http://csua.com/feed/